During the COVID-19 lockdown, 14-year-old Rani from rural Uttarakhand used to climb trees to catch a signal to attend online classes. On the other side of the globe, in the USA, students had internet but no devices to access it. Not long ago, watching a YouTube video without it buffering was considered luck. Then came Jio, taking the country’s internet infrastructure by storm. Suddenly, people had free mobile data plans & good connectivity. Now, even a street vendor in India can be seen owning a smartphone with UPI QR codes for transactions.
While the US layered new technologies onto an existing broadband foundation, India leapfrogged directly to mobile internet. We demonstrated how late adopters can leverage affordability and scale to rapidly expand access. India’s internet expansion is primarily driven by market forces, while the U.S. relied more on broadband infrastructure and regulated market continuity.
Why did two democracies adopt the internet in such different ways, in terms of development models and state v. market?
Background and Current Landscape
The Internet of today was built to make data and programs accessible from every site. The adoption of the Internet in the US was a gradual process, with a focus on building nationwide infrastructure. On the other hand, it was a tool for development in India, with cost-driven adoption. In the early days in the US, the internet was not made for the public at large; it was explicitly created to promote research, academic pursuits, and military communication. Public access was indirectly restricted due to the high cost and institutional concentration of computing resources.
In India, government policies opposed the general public owning computers; a license was required to own one, as the internet was in its early stages, and there was no way to prevent hacking into servers. Later, computers became more affordable due to the liberalisation of import regulations and lower prices. In 1995, the internet was introduced to the public for the first time as VSNL launched its own Gateway Internet Access Service. But it was highly costly, with various barriers to infrastructure development.
So how did a restricted tool for scientists in the US and a licensed luxury in India evolve into the world’s most powerful digital ecosystem? What policy shifts, market forces, and technological breakthroughs bridged the gap between “limited access” and “digital saturation”?
Drivers of Adoption and Usage Patterns: US
What led to the dramatic rise of internet usage in the US, from only 1.2% in 1991 to 91.3% in 2021? The Internet has now become nearly universal. 96% of the adults in the US use the internet today. Internet adoption in the US was demand-driven, whereas in India it was access-driven. The American society gradually transformed, and digital connectivity became an extension of work, consumption, and individual productivity.
The Internet is used for more purposes than just education, including text communication, commerce, entertainment, and remote work. This widespread adoption can be attributed to a combination of technological advancements, commercialisation, government policies, and economic factors, with PC and broadband culture playing a catalytic role. The creation of the World Wide Web in 1990 and the development of graphical web browsers such as Mosaic and Netscape in the mid-1990s, with their point-and-click interfaces, made using the internet easier for the average person.
The lifting of the ban on commercial ISPs led to rapid growth and increased competition, thereby providing more affordable options for the public. Even the rise of platforms like Amazon and Google pushed people to integrate the internet into their daily lives for shopping, communication, & entertainment.
Drivers of Adoption and Usage Patterns: India
India, on the other hand, has one of the largest “mobile-first” digital communities with nearly 96% active users accessing via mobile phones due to its affordability and widespread availability. 55.3% of the total population (806 million individuals) are online for various purposes, such as staying in touch with friends and family, streaming videos and music, education, and news. This reflects differing socio-economic realities. While internet use in the US is often productivity-oriented, in India, it functions as a multipurpose tool for entertainment, information, and financial inclusion.
The introduction of extremely low-cost plans by Reliance Jio in 2016 led to a dramatic increase in internet penetration; meanwhile, programs like Digital India and the Bharat Net project, which focused on building infrastructure, contributed to the massive surge in users during the COVID period. With the government promoting cashless payments, UPI usage for day-to-day transactions surged. The e-education initiatives contributed significantly, as the user base expanded to include school-going kids.
In both countries, society played a significant role in the adoption of technology. India did it for entertainment, while the US focused on work productivity. The multilingual culture of India, compared with the dominance of English in the US, also greatly influenced adoption, with platforms offering interfaces and content in regional languages. Multilingual expansion became crucial for scaling internet access in a country like India that is linguistically diverse.
Barriers and Challenges
Both countries struggle with universal, high-quality internet access, facing different fundamental barriers.
In India, a stark urban-rural digital divide persists. Of the 948 million rural population, only 31% use the internet due to infrastructural hurdles, such as the cost of deploying fibre in difficult terrain and unreliable power supply for telecom infrastructure. Furthermore, digital literacy gaps, particularly among the elderly, and growing cyber security concerns act as significant deterrents. Access can be improved by combining fibre with wireless and satellite networks for rural areas, expanding community-level digital literacy programs, and strengthening consumer cyber security protections.
In the US, three significant challenges exist: infrastructure, affordability, and adoption. Last-mile broadband connectivity requires high upfront capital expenditure. Broadband, if available, is not affordable for most Americans, rural and urban alike (where there’s little to no competition among cable companies). In some places, where broadband is both affordable and available, a new problem emerges. Not everyone possesses the digital skills and devices to utilise the benefits of broadband. Digital skills such as navigating, using a browser, communicating virtually, making online purchases, and, most importantly, staying digitally safe and protected. Solutions lie in promoting competition through municipal broadband, subsidising last-mile connectivity in underserved areas, and integrating digital skills training into workforce and education policies.
In both countries, targeted public investment and regulatory reform are essential to convert access into meaningful use.
Conclusion
Both India and the US face the universal challenge of ensuring equitable, high-quality internet access, albeit with different barriers. Both governments have launched initiatives like the Bharat Net project (a Government of India initiative to provide high-speed broadband connectivity to all Gram Panchayats) and federal funding programs, such as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD), which focuses on large-scale infrastructure rollout in unserved and underserved areas, to bridge these divides.
As technology drives growth, both nations need to prioritise cyber security. India has established its comprehensive Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, while the US manages data privacy through sector-specific federal laws and varied state-level regulations.
Taken together, these developments illustrate that digital governance is not a one-size-fits-all model and that sustained investment in infrastructure, regulation, and security remains essential for both countries as digital technologies continue to shape economic and social outcomes.